There is a publication that goes out to all active members...publish the SIM section there.

The USPA has an email list of their members-publish the info there.

USPA sends out emails to all persons with ratings-publish the info there.

USPA has a facebook page-publish the info there.

USPA has a blog-though it is almost dead and rarely updated-publish the info there.

USPA has the ability to communicate with all group member dz's. Contact them all and send them the info.

USPA has a website-make it the front page issue.

To say experienced instructors don't know it's there means the USPA is failing in basic communication. Try the communication route BEFORE regulation.

A question: Of dz's that provide some sort of briefing or instruction, how many tail strikes have there been at those dz's?

Also, my statement "Adding a specific rating for one (very small, low population) discipline will expose the >users and manufacturers to added liability in case of accidents (oh, you have to take a >special class for that. Must be more dangerous). " is not the same statement as the example you give.

I'm talking about adding a rating, and the de facto approval of a discipline and the actions resulting from that instruction; you are talking about individuals doing something of their own volition where they have not received discipline specific instruction from a USPA rated canopy coach. The two are not the same and the liability would be different. Whether the increased liability stands up in court is a different matter, I'm simply stating that it will increase liability for that subset.

For example, if an up jumper goes in or is injured because of his/her own error, how much liability does the dz hold? Very little, except for providing the airplane and some sort of gross negligence related to their operation.

Now change that to a student under supervision of an instructor...now the dz, instructor, rigger, and all those associated are in a situation where they could be liable.

This does not necessarily mean I am for a canopy coach rating, but I definitely believe a canopy coach rating would take precedence and improve our sport more then a wingsuit coach rating would.

"Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for every >conceivable discipline, there is no place for making a rating for one individual discipline."

Point taken on commentary for this statement. My statement should have been

Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for every conceivable discipline, there is no place for making a rating for one individual discipline unless every skydiver participates in said discipline.

Every skydiver has to learn to skydive-hence AFF/IAD/SL/Student training. Every skydiver has to learn to land a parachute-hence AFF/IAD/SL/Student training.

What percentage of skydivers will actually fly a wingsuit? What is the total number of active skydivers who fly wingsuits now?

If it is truly a liability issue with wingsuiters hitting airplanes...it won't take long before the owners of said airplanes take action. Let them deal with it.

>What part of wingsuiting do you feel is so difficult that you couldn't read about it >and understand what is meant?

Threading the suit. Coming up with a flight plan. Dealing with malfunctions with the suit on and with it unzipped. Learning the deployment. Learning the basic body position.

>I can't think of one single thing about flying a wingsuit that is confusing enough to need >someone to explain it instead of just reading it from a flight manual.

For 90% of the skydivers out there, it's not. Heck, for 80% of the whuffos out there, we could just have them read the SIM, put a rig on them and kick them out the door at 13,000 feet with no training - and they'd be fine.

But as wingsuiting becomes more popular, that 10% of people are going to mean a lot of skydivers who are missing some crucial information. For a long time that's been OK because few wingsuiters have been dumb enough to try to wingsuit without talking to someone first. But as wingsuits become more popular, and people start treating them with as little regard as they do a new canopy they try, that will become more and more of a problem. (As we've seen.)

>There is a publication that goes out to all active members...publish the SIM >section there.

There have been at least three or four articles about beginning wingsuiting in PARACHUTIST. You could also publish the SIM section; I'd be all for that as well. But again, that doesn't help someone who is learning to skydive now, because they're going to miss that issue. (And adding fourteen pages of wingsuiting stuff to _every_ issue is probably counterproductive, and would likely add a bit to dues.)

Currently the SIM is available for free online, and USPA touts its availability regularly. So while publishing it on paper could help it's not a huge improvement over what we have now.

Again, I am all for that. It has been tried - but if you want to try even more, I'd support you in that effort.

>For example, if an up jumper goes in or is injured because of his/her own error, how >much liability does the dz hold? Very little . . . .

I assume you are kidding here. DZ's can be sued and have been sued for just about everything you can imagine. That's why the waiver is so long. Liability is a huge concern for most DZ's.

>Now change that to a student under supervision of an instructor...now the dz, >instructor, rigger, and all those associated are in a situation where they could be liable.

Yes. As they are now. The waiver covers all of the above. Most waivers are pretty good but as I mentioned that's not guaranteed protection.

>Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for >every conceivable discipline, there is no place for making a rating for one individual >discipline unless every skydiver participates in said discipline.

?? I don't get that either. USPA should not have a SL-I rating unless every skydiver learns via static line? USPA should not have a PRO rating unless everyone does demos? There are small subsets of instruction that are regulated by USPA even now, despite their narrow applicability.

?? I don't get that either. USPA should not have a SL-I rating unless every skydiver learns via static line? USPA should not have a PRO rating unless everyone does demos? There are small subsets of instruction that are regulated by USPA even now, despite their narrow applicability.

Apples and oranges. We don't have a SL-I rating to teach licensed skydivers how to jump a static line.

We don't have PRO-I, PRO I/E and Pro Course Directors to teach licensed skydivers how to get a PRO rating.

That's how I and hundreds of others learned to do it. Based on the number of tail strikes, I'd say that process is broken.

I doubt I would have been any safer if I'd had an instructor read it to me. based on the number of tail strikes, it couldn't have hurt.

It really just isn't that hard. Based on the number of tail strikes, .... well, this is getting easy?

Here's the thing, standardized instruction will not hurt your discipline. It can only make it better. What are you afraid of? .... that's not sarcasm, I really don't see what you are afraid of.

Your argument would make some sense if they were new guys that didn't know they were supposed to exit with their wings closed hitting the tail. There's no reason to believe that if they would have gotten their initial training from a WSI instead of an experienced friend or a book they wouldn't have had tailstrikes.

I think it's more likely that they all had the information but just fucked up. So, unless your WSI is going to be there on every jump, this isn't going to solve anything.

What I'm afraid of is you guys making it more difficult and more expensive for new wingsuit pilots to get in on the fun. I'm afraid that you people might actually say that there are now only 7 people in the world that can give me the special blessing I'll need before I can teach any more of my friends to fly wingsuits. This is exactly what they're proposing!

Actually, I'm not that afraid. I have faith that the skydiving community in general has enough sense to vote this down. I can't imagine 50% of us voluntarily requesting more regulations and another big bureaucracy even if billvon is right about 10% of us being completely retarded.

This particular incident has always bothered me. The " I will be the first WSI on the planet" attitude, to the lack of understand what a skydiving instructor does, and the responsibility they are required to have....it all went out the door with Dan. I sincerely hope he is never allowed to teach skydiving. Any flavor. When you do not complete one of the most basic mantras of skydiving instructing, I will never trust you a student's life. I think it's clear, that no proper instruction was given. I think it was criminal. I think this is a shining example FOR standardized training. This shit IS serious.

"he" sure looks good in all those full page color adverts by his sponsors, being the big name he is now and all that.... Guess I need to start killing students too, so I can get some free gear and become a factory test pilot and get me some of those full page glossy adverts too.

I'm in the middle of opening a new dz right now. I don't want to sound rude, but if the uspa is going to make it a rule that I can no longer teach people to fly wingsuits out of my airplane until spot or whoever says I can, I think I'll pass on the group membership.

Passing on group membership means you can ignore the FAR's and BSR's? Sweet!!!!!

I'm in the middle of opening a new dz right now. I don't want to sound rude, but if the uspa is going to make it a rule that I can no longer teach people to fly wingsuits out of my airplane until spot or whoever says I can, I think I'll pass on the group membership.

Passing on group membership means you can ignore the FAR's and BSR's? Sweet!!!!!

I'm in the middle of opening a new dz right now. I don't want to sound rude, but if the uspa is going to make it a rule that I can no longer teach people to fly wingsuits out of my airplane until spot or whoever says I can, I think I'll pass on the group membership.

Passing on group membership means you can ignore the FAR's and BSR's? Sweet!!!!!

Where'd that come from? Everyone has to follow FAR's. Luckily this conversation has nothing to do with FAR's.

Are you saying that a non uspa dz could somehow possibly be required to enforce uspa bsr's?

At least I won't be sending them group member dues to fund this nonsense.

Not that it's going to matter. I don't think there's any possibility of this passing anyways. I'm pretty sure we'll end up being a USPA dz.

> We don't have a SL-I rating to teach licensed skydivers how to jump a static line.

Uh, yes, we do. It's called an I/E, and they are the only ones who can teach the ICC needed to become an SL-I.

Are there any regulations against 2 licensed skydivers static-lining each other out of the plane without a rating or with out even any instruction?

Probably not relevent currently, but back when I had an I and it was S/L or nothing ~ the insurance on our bird stated in effect no Skydivers would do anything in or after jumping out, that they weren't licensed, rated or certified for without a written waiver from the Insurance co.

Tried once to explain to them that there are many instances in which that just doesn't make sense...kinda hard to get qualified for something if ya gotta be qualified before you leave the plane.

This parallels his (and many other people's) belief that you should not need a wingsuit instructor rating to instruct licensed skydivers in wingsuiting.

In reply to:

Because UNLIKE all other areas of aviation, licensed Skydivers are just 'born' with skills & knowledge allowing for transition to more complex equipment & procedures...without needing to concern themselves about experienced instruction or performance standards evaluation.

IF ONLY i'd remembered to bring my skydiving license when I went for the tail-dragger 'nod'!

This parallels his (and many other people's) belief that you should not need a wingsuit instructor rating to instruct licensed skydivers in wingsuiting.

In reply to:

Because UNLIKE all other areas of aviation, licensed Skydivers are just 'born' with skills & knowledge allowing for transition to more complex equipment & procedures...without needing to concern themselves about experienced instruction or performance standards evaluation.

So you'd like a PRO-I, PRO I/E and PRO-course director rating from USPA to train people to get PRO ratings - no one is born knowing how to get a PRO rating.

This parallels his (and many other people's) belief that you should not need a wingsuit instructor rating to instruct licensed skydivers in wingsuiting.

In reply to:

Because UNLIKE all other areas of aviation, licensed Skydivers are just 'born' with skills & knowledge allowing for transition to more complex equipment & procedures...without needing to concern themselves about experienced instruction or performance standards evaluation.

IF ONLY i'd remembered to bring my skydiving license when I went for the tail-dragger 'nod'!

So the CFI that gave you the tailwheel endorsement-- Did he have to get special taildragger CFI rating and prove to an faa examiner that he can teach someone how to safely operate a tailwheel airplane? Or can just any CFI get a tailwheel endorsement from another CFI and start giving tailwheel instruction?